Abstract
The pundits who prophesied that the Internet would mean the end of intellectual property were wrong.1 Intellectual property is alive and well on the Internet. Copyrights, trademarks, and lately even patents are the subjects of vigorous, and increasingly successful, enforcement efforts. From high-tech start-up profiles to law-firm hiring patterns, the evidence suggests that protection of online intellectual property is a growth industry. But this is not, to borrow a turn of phrase, your father’s intellectual property. This intellectual property is different. Traditional intellectual property rights, which were limited monopolies operating in distinct and different subject areas, have been retrofitted to become sophisticated, mutually reinforcing methods of controlling information use.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ayres, in, and Eric Talley. 1995. Solomonic Bargaining: Dividing a Legal Entitlement to Facilitate Coasean Trade. Yale Law Journal 104, no. 5 (March): 1027.
Barlow, John Perry. 1994. The Economy of Ideas: A Framework for Rethinking Patents and Copyrights in the Digital Age. Wired, March, 84.
Benkler, Yochai. 2000a. Net Regulation: Taking Stock and Looking Forward. Uni-versify of Colorado Law Review 71, no. 4 (Fall): 1203.
Benkler, Yochai, 2000b. Constitutional Bounds of Database Protection: The Role of Judicial Review in the Creation and Definition of Private Rights in Information. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 14, no. 2 (Spring): 535.
Burk, Dan L. 2000. The Trouble With Trespass. Journal of Small & Emerging Business Law4, no. 1 (spring): 27. http://http://www.clark.edu/org/jsebl/vol4nol.html.
Clark, David D., and Marjory S. Blumenthal. 2000. Rethinking the Design of the Internet: The End to End Arguments vs. the Brave New World (working paper on file with author). Version for submission 10 August 2000 at Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Alexandria, Virginia, http://http://www.tprc.org/abstracts00/rethinking.pdf.
Cohen, Julie E. 1998. Copyright and the Jurisprudence of Self-Help. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 13, no. 3 (fall): 108. http://www.law.berkeley.edu v>.
Cohen, Julie E. Copyright and the Perfect Curve. 2000. Vanderbilt Law Review 53, no. 6
(November): 1799. http://www.law.vanderbilt.edu/lawreview/vol536/cohen. pdf>.
Dyson, Esther. 1995. Intellectual Value. Wired, July, 136.
Froomkin, A. Michael. 1999. Semi-Private International Rulemaking: Lessons Learned from the WIPO Domain Name Process. Version 2.0 (working paper on file with author), http://http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/TPRC99. pdf.
Ginsburg, Jane C. 2002. From Having Copies to Experiencing Works: The Development of an Access Right in U.S. Copyright Law. In U.S. Intellectual Property: Law and Policy, edited by Hugh Hansen. Sweet & Maxwell.
Hugenholtz, P. Bernt. 2001. The New Database Right: Early Case Law from Europe. http://http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/fordham2001 .html>.
Information Infrastructure Task Force, United States, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights (1995), http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ ipnii/ index.html>.
Kozinski, Alex. 1993. Trademarks Unplugged. New York University Law Review 68, no. 4 (October): 960.
Lemley, Mark A., and Lawrence Lessig. 2001. The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era. UCLA Law Review 48, no. 4 (April): 925.
Lessig, Lawrence. 1999. The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach. Harvard Law Review 113, no. 2: 501.
Litman, Jessica. 1999. Breakfast With Batman: The Public Interest in the Advertising Age. Yale Law Journal 108, no. 7 (May): 1717.
Mueller, Milton. 2000. Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (working paper on file with author), http:// http://www.dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.htm>.
O’Rourke, Maureen A. 2000. Shaping Competition on the Internet: Who Owns Product and Pricing Information? Vanderbilt Law Review 53, no. 6 (November): 1965. http://http://www.law.vanderbilt.edu/lawreview/vol536/orourke.pdf>.
An Imminent Constitutional Collision. George Washington Law Review 67, no. 2 (January): 359.
Radin, Margaret Jane. 2002. Online Standardization and the Integration of Text and Machine. Fordham Law Review 70, no. 4 (March): 1125.
Reichman, J.H., and Pamela Samuelson. 1997. Intellectual Property Rights in Data? Vanderbilt Law Review 50, no. 1 (January): 51.
Samuelson, Pamela, and John Browning. 1997. Confab Clips Copyright Cartel. Wired, March, 61.
Samuelson, Pamela. 1990. Benson Revisited: The Case Against Patent Protection for Algorithms and Other Computer Program-Related Inventions. Emory Law Journal 39, no. 4 (fall): 1025.
Stefik, Mark. 1997. Shifting the Possible: How Trusted Systems and Digital Property Rights Challenge Us to Rethink Digital Publishing. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 12, no. 1 (spring): 137.
Thomas, John R. 1999. The Patenting of the Liberal Professions. Boston College Law Review 40, no. 5 (September): 1139.
Thomas, John R. 2001. Post-Industrial Patents and Personal Liberties (working paper on file with author).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cohen, J.E. (2002). Intellectual Property and the Information Economy. In: Lehr, W.H., Pupillo, L.M. (eds) Cyber Policy and Economics in an Internet Age. Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy Series, vol 43. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3575-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3575-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-3577-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-3575-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive